ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs

  • To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Re: Regarding issues report on IDNs
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:33:52 -0500
  • Cc: paf@xxxxxxxxx, John Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <43E5EB8E.5030000@nic.museum>
  • References: <43E5EB8E.5030000@nic.museum>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 5 feb 2006, at 07.11, Cary Karp wrote:

I think you have to take a step back and identify what questions have
to be asked, and REALLY try to find questions that are not dependent
of each other. Many of the words Sophia wrote about DNAME really is
not about DNAME but from my point of view other questions.

It is certainly laudable to try and find issues that can be described in isolation of other issues. and I realize that in the purest of IETF engineering circles there is often a desire to do a strict bifurcation between the technical (the good) and political/policy (the bad/ugly). But on the topic of IDN, i don't see how this can be done. Even the questions that PAF asks are dependent on the current thinking about the technology and if there was creative work being on the research and engineering for IDN, we might have different questions to answer.

Unfortunately, as interesting as the IAB draft is, it doesn't, to my mind, do much to indicate what work will be done to try and figure out solutions, maybe even creative solutions, that take the very real political realities into account. I think it is critical to realize that the political realities, though not yet fully understood, constitute some of the requirements for any technical solution (another way of saying technical solutions need to take customer requirements into account)

I may miss the Council meeting discussion on this topic because of my flight schedule, hence this note. While I think experimentation is always a good thing, I think the work that needs to be done both technically and regarding policy (dare i say the technopolitical work) is extensive and requires a more serious attempt to bring the threads together in discussion. And the need to widen the discussion beyond the relatively closed door IAB circles, council circles, and presidential blue ribbon panels. The discussion in Vancouver was an interesting tidbit of a start, but we need to figure out how do get some cooperative heavy lifting done in this area. As someone who is on the council and a participant in the IETF and the IRTF, I am hoping to see the initiation of some activities, some joint activities, in the very near future. I think the council can play an important role in calling for such cooperative efforts.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>